D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

[Campbell]

I honestly don't know. Why are DDM minis on round bases? Shouldn't they be on square bases?

I see your problem - You're thinking too hard about D&D. No good can come of that. Besides, plastic is mondo expensive.

 

[Hussar]

So, you're saying that the 3rd party stuff is more correct than the actual official miniatures produced by WotC? Especially when WotC's technique solves the diagonal squeezing problem you brought up? I think you might be looking for trouble where there is none.

By the rules, yes, it is. A mini has a square base. Even in the pictures in the PHB, they have square bases. The rules state that they have square bases.

So, yes, round bases would be wrong.

And, yeah, I agree with Merric that the only reason for round bases is aesthetic. By rules, it's not kosher.

Now, as far as being bitter or whatever, I use round bases and I couldn't give a toss about the accuracy. Close enough is more than good enough for me. A 15 foot wide monster can fit in a 15 foot wide corridor regardless of what that battlemap might say.

But, we're not talking about my game or your game. We're talking about what the rules ACTUALLY say. I've talked to Hypersmurf far too many times to think that my personal interpretation of the rules is going to hold any water. RAW states that a huge monster has a base 15 feet to a side. That means a 9x9 base using 5 foot squares. That means you get weirdness all over the place.

That's my only point in all of this. That 3.5 1-2-1 rules are not any more particularly accurate or realistic than any other abstraction.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Yes, though paintbrush diagrams would be sufficient, of course.

Okay, I've tried to get some diagrams together...can't say my graphic skills are up to the standards of this thread yet, but maybe I'll get there. Meanwhile, I hope they convey what I mean.

Situation 1: A Huge monster controls/needs a space of 15'x15'. That is translated to 3 squares across in the D&D measurement of 5 feet = 1 square = 1 inch. Hence, it can function nicely in a corridor of 15 feet width like this.


But so can it in a corridor angled at 45°. The 1-2-1-2 rule states that a diagonal is alternatively equal to 1 or 2 squares across, or 1.5 squares on average. This means the 15'x15' area of the Huge monster doesn't change size when you place it into the angled corridor. As you can see on the second diagram, the area it occupies stays the same, and the 15 feet border turn into 2 diagonals...2 diagonals equalling 1+2=3 squares, which is the battlemat translation of 15 feet. The corridor is the same 15' width all over the diagram (you hopefully will excuse the inexactness due to my PC drawing improficiency, I'm better with a ruler and a pen), and the monster's area of combat has the same size as before, as demonstrated by the constant number of squares it fills. By the way, the red squares were left in as a measurement of area size, namely the area a properly sized, square mini base would cover on the map, and as nothing else.


I hope I was able to illustrate my point sufficiently . If not...well, I guess I need to hunt down some monster tiles from old Dungeon magazines and create a little battlemap, and really take pictures. It won't change the fact that monsters (and their combat areas) don't change size when turned at 45° to the grid, because the 1-2-1-2 rule conforms to the same physical reality (with an error margin of 6%, granted) that the minis/tiles on the battlemap do.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

That's my only point in all of this. That 3.5 1-2-1 rules are not any more particularly accurate or realistic than any other abstraction.

In other words, Hussar found one little nitpick with the 3.5 rules, and since 3.5 is thus demonstrably not perfect, 4.0 can have completely crappy movement rules and still be 'equal'.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Ken

 

[delericho]

But so can it in a corridor angled at 45°. The 1-2-1-2 rule states that a diagonal is alternatively equal to 1 or 2 squares across, or 1.5 squares on average. This means the 15'x15' area of the Huge monster doesn't change size when you place it into the angled corridor.

The problem is that to do that you have had to rotate the square base through 45 degrees, which is a no-no. If instead of placing it in the 15 ft. wide corridor you do the same in an open plain, you'll find that the Huge creature now fills up far more than the 9 squares it should be covering.

The reason the Huge creature can't get down the 15 ft wide corridor without squeezing is an unevenly applied abstraction. Basically, we're allowing the map to draw half-squares, but not allowing the monster to make use of them.

There are two fixes for this:

1) Clip the corners of the monster base, either by switching to a round or octagonal base. If we do this, the creature fits the available space. This also allows a Huge creature to fall down a round pit of 15ft diameter, which cannot happen in the current abstraction.

2) Instead of the walls of the corridor being straight lines along the diagonal (giving lots of half squares), they should be forced to conform to the gird, giving a step pattern to the corridor. Similarly, towers can't be round, they must be squared circles, and so on.

Of these two options, #1 is by far the cleaner fix, modelling reality more accurately.

The 1-1-1-1 fix is to make the diagonal corridor 3 diagonal squares wide, which has the nice side effect of making that diagonal 15 ft wide corridor visibly and obviously wider than the orthogonal 15 ft wide corridors.

 

[Rel]

My interpretation is that a creature with a 10' face is 10 feet wide in its widest dimension. Yes, this means that it takes up most of those four squares, to the point where, from a rules abstration standpoint, nobody else can be in those same squares. But it does not mean that they occupy every inch of them.

Unless of course they are a Gelatinous Cube.

 

[hong]

My interpretation is that a creature with a 10' face is 10 feet wide in its widest dimension. Yes, this means that it takes up most of those four squares, to the point where, from a rules abstration standpoint, nobody else can be in those same squares. But it does not mean that they occupy every inch of them.

Unless of course they are a Gelatinous Cube.

Are you saying this mini makes my butt look fat?

 

[Hussar]

In other words, Hussar found one little nitpick with the 3.5 rules, and since 3.5 is thus demonstrably not perfect, 4.0 can have completely crappy movement rules and still be 'equal'.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Ken

Go back upthread a bit. Hardly one nitpick. But, for your edification, here's a few more:

• You can reach 15 feet on the diagonal, but only 10 feet on the orthagonal.
• You cannot actually fall down a 5 foot diameter round hole. (as delricho pointed out)
• If I move 20 feet in one round on the diagonal (3 diagonal squares), how many feet do I have to move to move one more diagonal in the next round? Prove it with rules quotes.

It's late, I listed more above if you want to swim backwards.

 

[Lackhand]

Okay, I've tried to get some diagrams together...can't say my graphic skills are up to the standards of this thread yet, but maybe I'll get there. Meanwhile, I hope they convey what I mean.

Situation 1: A Huge monster controls/needs a space of 15'x15'. That is translated to 3 squares across in the D&D measurement of 5 feet = 1 square = 1 inch. Hence, it can function nicely in a corridor of 15 feet width like this.


But so can it in a corridor angled at 45°. The 1-2-1-2 rule states that a diagonal is alternatively equal to 1 or 2 squares across, or 1.5 squares on average. This means the 15'x15' area of the Huge monster doesn't change size when you place it into the angled corridor. As you can see on the second diagram, the area it occupies stays the same, and the 15 feet border turn into 2 diagonals...2 diagonals equalling 1+2=3 squares, which is the battlemat translation of 15 feet. The corridor is the same 15' width all over the diagram (you hopefully will excuse the inexactness due to my PC drawing improficiency, I'm better with a ruler and a pen), and the monster's area of combat has the same size as before, as demonstrated by the constant number of squares it fills. By the way, the red squares were left in as a measurement of area size, namely the area a properly sized, square mini base would cover on the map, and as nothing else.


I hope I was able to illustrate my point sufficiently . If not...well, I guess I need to hunt down some monster tiles from old Dungeon magazines and create a little battlemap, and really take pictures. It won't change the fact that monsters (and their combat areas) don't change size when turned at 45° to the grid, because the 1-2-1-2 rule conforms to the same physical reality (with an error margin of 6%, granted) that the minis/tiles on the battlemap do.

So like I said, you allow the monster to either rotate the grid freely, or align the grid to the walls of the area the monster is in, you just don't think of it that way.
I mean, the monster's not in any squares; you can tell by the way it's all diagonal and stuff that any squares it occupies are completely coincidental to the way you're making rulings on it. Because of this, you're not even using the 1-2-1-2 abstraction, you're using a euclidean distance metric directly and rounding off the difference. The difference between the two comes only on the diagonals and rotations; you permit them, RAW doesn't. They really do force a huge creature to squeeze in that corridor because there really isn't facing in the rules.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it isn't RAW, and while it's slightly further from the Rules as they Shall Be Writ, meh. I'm contemplating, if and when I run 4E games, dropping the grid entirely and playing freeform, measured string and all, or even trying to cook up some abstracted movement rules.

We'll see. I'm VERY MUCH a fan of 1-1-1-1 because it's simpler; these kinds of brainteasers can destroy any sufficiently playable abstraction ( ) because I have a very low tolerance for what's necessary in "necessary complexity" in a game that isn't chess or played anything like it. The less "board game" in my D&D, the happier.

 

[Hussar]

My interpretation is that a creature with a 10' face is 10 feet wide in its widest dimension. Yes, this means that it takes up most of those four squares, to the point where, from a rules abstration standpoint, nobody else can be in those same squares. But it does not mean that they occupy every inch of them.

Unless of course they are a Gelatinous Cube.

Honestly, I'd rule exactly this way as well. But, again, we're not talking about my or your game, but what the RAW say.